MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297458683 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0274329

A pilot study investigating human behaviour towards DAVE (Dog Assisted Virtual Environment) and interpretation of non-reactive and aggressive behaviours during a virtual reality exploration task

2022· article· en· W4297458683 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
James A. Oxley, Georg Meyer, Iain Cant, Giuseppe M Bellantuono, Matthew Butcher, Andrew Levers, Carri Westgarth

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDogs Trust
KeywordsVirtual realityAggressionPsychologyEthologyImmersion (mathematics)Animal welfareTest (biology)MedicineClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dog aggression is a public health concern because dog bites often lead to physical and psychological trauma in humans. It is also a welfare concern for dogs. To prevent aggressive behaviours, it is important to understand human behaviour towards dogs and our ability to interpret signs of dog aggression. This poses ethical challenges for humans and dogs. The aim of this study was to introduce, describe and pilot test a virtual reality dog model (DAVE (Dog Assisted Virtual Environment)). The Labrador model has two different modes displaying aggressive and non-reactive non-aggressive behaviours. The aggressive behaviours displayed are based on the current understanding of canine ethology and expert feedback. The objective of the study was to test the recognition of dog behaviour and associated human approach and avoidance behaviour. Sixteen university students were recruited via an online survey to participate in a practical study, and randomly allocated to two experimental conditions, an aggressive followed by a non-reactive virtual reality model (group AN) or vice versa (group NA). Participants were instructed to 'explore the area' in each condition, followed by a survey. A Wilcoxon and Mann Whitney U test was used to compare the closest distance to the dog within and between groups respectively. Participants moved overall significantly closer to the non-reactive dog compared to the aggressive dog (p≤0.001; r = 0.8). Descriptions of the aggressive dog given by participants often used motivational or emotional terms. There was little evidence of simulator sickness and presence scores were high indicating sufficient immersion in the virtual environment. Participants appeared to perceive the dog as realistic and behaved and interacted with the dog model in a manner that might be expected during an interaction with a live dog. This study also highlights the promising results for the potential future use of virtual reality in behavioural research (i.e., human-dog interactions), education (i.e. safety around dogs) and psychological treatment (e.g. dog phobia treatment).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.634
Threshold uncertainty score0.780

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesFrench-language works237,207